Anyway, I was inspired to make this thread by a comment Volkov recently made. It made me ponder this question: from whence do rights originate? What makes our lives any more valuable than that of animal lives? Are there even such things as rights?

All opinions are welcome.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

"Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life."

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Read that book, and it will explain what "rights" are and how they are recognized.

This is an excellent thread by the way, and I wish I had more time to talk about it right now. I'll come back later and explain about the ideas represented in that book, specifically - what rights are, how they're recognized and what their purpose is.

Rights are privileges that are codified into law - or, rights are ideas of privileges that individuals agree upon are privileges that applies to the very idea of being human.

When talking about "rights," you're usually putting it into those two camps. The former is most commonly referred to as "legal rights," and the latter is known as "human rights."

Most of the time, they overlap each other - but there is other times when they don't.

Anyways, I'll explain the basic idea of what rights are, and where they come from.

We'll start off with legal rights. Legal rights are ones that come from a country's or organization's documentation - a Constitution, for example.

The best line to describe the source of legal rights is that "our ancestors fought for them," or that you fought for them yourself. The basic idea behind this is that individuals fight for certain privileges to be recognized by their government - or whatever the jurisdictional body is - and if they win, those privileges can be codified into law, and recognized by the courts or legal body.

Now, on to human rights. This is a much more tricky subject, as human rights are often considered inherent and ideal, rather than recognized and practical.

Human rights are thought to be critical to the very idea of being human. For instance, the right not to have another person end your existence is often considered to be "human right," as it is something that it is critical to being a human - existence, or at least conscious existence.

Human rights though are not always necessarily legal rights. For instance, R_R may argue that it is a human right that an individual's property should not be taxed by the government, because taxation is theft - but, even though that is what he may consider a human right, it is not a legal right.

As I explained earlier with legal rights, jurisdictional bodies are the ones that recognize rights and give them to their members/citizens.

But, as noted in the Rights Revolution, "legislatures and governments do not give us our rights; they are there to respect the rights we possess already."

This is because rights are thought to exist prior to a government.

To sum it up in simple words - individuals create and give themselves their rights, and a government is set up to defend, and possibly extend, those rights.

Anyways, that is a basic overview of rights and where they come from, what they mean and etc. I really recommend reading the Rights Revolution (author - Michael Ignatieff), as it lays out clearly what rights are, and then goes into the more complicated details of how they're recognized, what ones we should recognize and what ones we shouldn't, etc.

No life form has any 'right' to live and be happy more than any other life form. It is survival of the fittest, every man for himself. Humans are just animals in the end, albeit ones with special traits. But how does that give us some sort of privilege in the animal kingdom? That is my question, and I haven't really found an answer.

Where do rights come from!?!

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

No life form has any 'right' to live and be happy more than any other life form. It is survival of the fittest, every man for himself. Humans are just animals in the end, albeit ones with special traits. But how does that give us some sort of privilege in the animal kingdom?

In "The animal kingdom" rights are irrelevant. Rights are those limitations it is proper for other humans to take toward you (Proper given a predefined, universal goal, the only goal universal among living humans, since human life is a volitional process, is life itself), given what is rational for you to want to avoid toward you and therefore refrain from as a result of that goal. They have no meaning between rational and nonrational animals, or just between nonrational animals-- your rights are no disincentive for a mindless drooling beast to still eat you, whereas if a rational being pays attention to them, they and the consequences of them will be a sufficient disincentive.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Here you identify taxation as theft, which presumes the right of property to be a meaningful concept.You also identify "the initiation of force as always evil," which means, given the nature of who initiates force you identify as a right that no one have it initiated against them.

Here you identify taxation as theft, which presumes the right of property to be a meaningful concept.You also identify "the initiation of force as always evil," which means, given the nature of who initiates force you identify as a right that no one have it initiated against them.

Here you identify taxation as theft, which presumes the right of property to be a meaningful concept.You also identify "the initiation of force as always evil," which means, given the nature of who initiates force you identify as a right that no one have it initiated against them.

And here you identify yourself as an anarchist, which means you think you've found some right, some proper limit, which government's creation inherently violates.

Oh, soic. Sorry for worrying you then R_R :P

What I meant when I said my completely unclarified "Rights do not exist" I was referring to legal rights. "Right to fair trial", "Right to freedom of speech", etc.

"Legal rights" is stealing a word for an inappropriate use, where privilege would be appropriate.

Or if we take it from a slightly different point of view, rights DON'T exist (but they SHOULD) because SOME entity can take it away from us at any point in time.

No entity can take away rights. Rights' existence lie in the fact that certain actions should be refrained from. To violate rights is not to take them away, they are still rights whether violated or not. To state "These rights exist" is to state "You should not step over this line," not "You have not stepped over this line."

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

What I meant when I said my completely unclarified "Rights do not exist" I was referring to legal rights. "Right to fair trial", "Right to freedom of speech", etc.

"Legal rights" is stealing a word for an inappropriate use, where privilege would be appropriate.

Though I agree, I find it more effective to just play along and then go and say "rights don't exist" simply because the demographics are going to find me more of those people and less of you. If we are talking about the concepts themselves, we are both supporting the same one. I am simply choosing to use a different set of words to express my thoughts.

Or if we take it from a slightly different point of view, rights DON'T exist (but they SHOULD) because SOME entity can take it away from us at any point in time.

No entity can take away rights. Rights' existence lie in the fact that certain actions should be refrained from. To violate rights is not to take them away, they are still rights whether violated or not. To state "These rights exist" is to state "You should not step over this line," not "You have not stepped over this line."

I concur.

"You have not stepped over this line" is a disgraceful combination of words anyways.

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

At 7/23/2009 8:48:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:In "The animal kingdom" rights are irrelevant. Rights are those limitations it is proper for other humans to take toward you (Proper given a predefined, universal goal, the only goal universal among living humans, since human life is a volitional process, is life itself), given what is rational for you to want to avoid toward you and therefore refrain from as a result of that goal. They have no meaning between rational and nonrational animals, or just between nonrational animals-- your rights are no disincentive for a mindless drooling beast to still eat you, whereas if a rational being pays attention to them, they and the consequences of them will be a sufficient disincentive.

Correct me if I have misinterpreted your statements.

Let's say that there are two humans. One human is much, much stronger than the other, so strong that the second human is absolutely no threat to the first. By your reasoning, would the second human have rights?

I would think not. The second human's power is of no consequence to the first human, so the first human need not acknowledge the rights of the second human.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

At 7/23/2009 8:48:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:In "The animal kingdom" rights are irrelevant. Rights are those limitations it is proper for other humans to take toward you (Proper given a predefined, universal goal, the only goal universal among living humans, since human life is a volitional process, is life itself), given what is rational for you to want to avoid toward you and therefore refrain from as a result of that goal. They have no meaning between rational and nonrational animals, or just between nonrational animals-- your rights are no disincentive for a mindless drooling beast to still eat you, whereas if a rational being pays attention to them, they and the consequences of them will be a sufficient disincentive.

Correct me if I have misinterpreted your statements.

Let's say that there are two humans. One human is much, much stronger than the other, so strong that the second human is absolutely no threat to the first. By your reasoning, would the second human have rights?

There are only two humans, and that is the situation?Keep in mind "Threat" isn't the only ground, just the strongest. Trade is also relevant-- if you don't respect rights, people cannot produce to their full potential, and trade can be arranged to raise everyone's standard of living (Attacking a potential trade partner is much like attacking yourself, other things equal :).Now if the second human was truly both incredibly weak and so worthless at production that that wouldn't be a proper ground for respecting the limit either-- that would be the situation. The term rights would be meaningless.

Of course that is not reality. There are many people, attacking one notifies them all that they are in danger from you whenever they have a weak moment. And division of labour does provide great benefits.

All of my moral arguments are designed solely to have meaning on Earth and similar situations, not with brains in a vat nor with odd couples on Mars.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

One thing for sure is that rights are NOT something granted by an authority. People act as if the only reason we have freedoms is because the U.S. Constitution says so. I could care less what a piece of paper says. I'm going to exercise my freedoms regardless.

"All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if it's going to give it to us or not." - David Icke

At 7/24/2009 1:13:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:One thing for sure is that rights are NOT something granted by an authority. People act as if the only reason we have freedoms is because the U.S. Constitution says so. I could care less what a piece of paper says. I'm going to exercise my freedoms regardless.

Obviously. Seeing as governments are run by people, they have the same capacity for error people have.

"All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if it's going to give it to us or not." - David Icke

Nice quote. I must ask though, where do these 'natural and eternal rights' come from? Ragnar's words were eloquent and very well-pondered, but I don't think his explanation is the right one. Do you have an alternative?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

At 7/24/2009 1:13:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:One thing for sure is that rights are NOT something granted by an authority. People act as if the only reason we have freedoms is because the U.S. Constitution says so. I could care less what a piece of paper says. I'm going to exercise my freedoms regardless.

Obviously. Seeing as governments are run by people, they have the same capacity for error people have.

"All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if it's going to give it to us or not." - David Icke

Nice quote. I must ask though, where do these 'natural and eternal rights' come from? Ragnar's words were eloquent and very well-pondered, but I don't think his explanation is the right one. Do you have an alternative?

As the quote suggests, these rights aren't gifts given to us, it is our natural state to be free. Anyone who comes along to give us a list of what we can and can't do is merely suppressing our natural freedom.

At 7/24/2009 1:13:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:One thing for sure is that rights are NOT something granted by an authority. People act as if the only reason we have freedoms is because the U.S. Constitution says so. I could care less what a piece of paper says. I'm going to exercise my freedoms regardless.

Obviously. Seeing as governments are run by people, they have the same capacity for error people have.

"All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if it's going to give it to us or not." - David Icke

Nice quote. I must ask though, where do these 'natural and eternal rights' come from? Ragnar's words were eloquent and very well-pondered, but I don't think his explanation is the right one. Do you have an alternative?

As the quote suggests, these rights aren't gifts given to us, it is our natural state to be free. Anyone who comes along to give us a list of what we can and can't do is merely suppressing our natural freedom.

Natural freedom?

You can't fly by arm flapping.

Am I suppressing something? You can't do it.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 7/24/2009 5:04:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:As the quote suggests, these rights aren't gifts given to us, it is our natural state to be free. Anyone who comes along to give us a list of what we can and can't do is merely suppressing our natural freedom.

Again, I ask you this: where does this natural freedom come from? What makes us so special? Why are we alone entitled to live and be happy above any other life form? What about survival of the fittest, and all that? Why does that not apply to us? Why are we somehow entitled to this 'natural freedom'?

I'm trying to ask a 'hard' question here. I love hard questions. They are so intellectually stimulating.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

At 7/24/2009 5:18:15 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:Again, I ask you this: where does this natural freedom come from?

What makes us so special?

The fact that we're the only species on this planet that can consider the consequences of our actions, and reason the course of action we take. No other animal can do this.

Why are we alone entitled to live and be happy above any other life form?

Well, depending upon who you ask, we aren't. But considering, we're entitled to it because we're able to realize what actions do what, and what the effects of those actions are. Because we can do this, we can give ourselves the privileges we deem necessary to our survival or happiness.

Other animals cannot, and therefore they are not entitled to it, unless we deem it necessary to extend our entitlement to them - but even then, it isn't really their entitlement.

What about survival of the fittest, and all that? Why does that not apply to us?

Again, depending upon who you ask, it does. They're called social darwinists.

But, our social support isn't unique to our species. This is something common among most animals. For instance, I remember seeing somewhere that a certain type of bat will support members of its group that don't get enough to eat by sharing their catch.

Those bats helping out their fellow specie mates are the equivalent to our ideas of rights. Social networks are designed to help keep our species strong and alive by helping support other members of the species that aren't as successful as others - the difference is that we recognize what it is, and why we do it, and stop it if we wanted to.

That is the benefit of our big brains - we can rise above base animal instincts because we can recognize what these actions are that we do.

Why are we somehow entitled to this 'natural freedom'?

We're not necessarily entitled to a "natural freedom" - we're entitled to the freedoms that our social networks name proper for us. The difference between us and all other known animals is that we can recognize what those freedoms are, and decide which ones we want and which ones we don't.

At 7/24/2009 5:04:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:As the quote suggests, these rights aren't gifts given to us, it is our natural state to be free. Anyone who comes along to give us a list of what we can and can't do is merely suppressing our natural freedom.

Again, I ask you this: where does this natural freedom come from?

The Universe.

What makes us so special?

This is irrelevant, but we have come further along in our evolution and personal development than other species.

Why are we alone entitled to live and be happy above any other life form?

I never suggested that. Every living being in the Universe has the right to be free. We are in the wrong when we suppress the freedom of animals.

What about survival of the fittest, and all that?

What about it? This is also irrelevant.

Why does that not apply to us? Why are we somehow entitled to this 'natural freedom'?

Free will is inherent in the Universe. All living beings have the right to live freely. It is only when another being decides to suppress and control another is that freedom suppressed.